What is in a word? For America's survival - everything. It may be my personal obsession, but I am thoroughly convinced that changing a single word would deal with our fundamental political ills.

Readers of this column will not be surprised to learn the word is "socialist." In fact, I fear some of you might even be bored by my obsession. But there is good reason to bring it up again. Rush Limbaugh, having rendered unique service to this nation and everyone who resides in it, is becoming increasingly vocal about socialism. On Wednesday, January 16, he used the word "socialism" and "socialist programs" innumerable times.

No one is in a comparable position to accomplish the task. Having overcome deafness even before there was light at the end of the tunnel, he must be approaching Hero Extraordinary status even in the minds of socialists, were they capable of honesty in applying their own criteria.

We might be within one step - I wish I could call it one easy step - of rescuing our political system. At this point, Rush still refers to the perpetrators and promoters of the socialist agenda as "Liberals." The trick is that last step, in a way like the last step toward actually creating life. We can figure out all the proteins, double helices, genomes we want. Until we can actually create life from lifeless matter, we have done nothing.

The gift of life is not in our purview, and hopefully never shall be. But we could take that other last step without which all the political battles we fight remain defensive rear-guard actions. That last step is to reject the untenable, intolerable designation of persons who impose speech codes, set admissions- and hiring quotas, aim to destroy our national defense, deconstruct our entire civilization, see everything as class or race war, and turn our young into instruments of the state, as "Liberal."

The day we start calling them socialist, which is patently what they are, the tables will have been turned.

They have good reasons for running from that word. Most Americans don't much care for socialists.

We could start with members of the "Progressive Caucus" in the U.S. House of Representatives. Until exposed, they shared a web site with the Socialist International. They now peeled off, but their agenda remains the same. Nothing in it sets apart their purpose from that of the Socialist International's.

We could continue with the Senate. Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy, with his blatantly socialist rhetoric, is an excellent candidate. "What?" I hear you say, "JFK's brother, a socialist?" Well, why not? His father was enamored with the National Socialists of the Third Reich. Once you scratch the surface, there is little difference in the underlying ideology.

Of course, socialists hang desperately on surface differences. A debate with the columnist E. J. Dionne at the monthly luncheon for chiefs of staff in the U.S. House of Representatives proved most revealing. The topic was the "Third Way," a popular ruse of socialists, first applied - can you believe that? - to the "Bolshevik" wing of the Russian Communist Party. As I progressed in making the case for the existence of only two truly different political philosophies (we might call them "American" and "Socialist"), Mr. Dionne ran out of arguments. But at the end, making certain there would be no time for me to respond, he delivered an impassioned soliloquy of outrage that I would dare to put Stalin and today's "benevolent" European socialists in the same camp.

Ever since Karl Marx went to a lot of trouble in the "Communist Manifesto" to identify seven versions of socialism, explaining why his own brand was different, socialists have been running from the failures and crimes of "other forms" of socialism - especially those of Hitler's Third Reich. But whatever the qualifier that precedes "Socialism" ("National," "Soviet," "Democratic"), all share the basic tenets of corrupting history, concentrating power in the hands of an "enlightened" ruling class, suppressing the individual as well as the voluntary community, and dismantling freedom.

Above all, they share a commitment to terminate the influence of Anglo-American political philosophy and practice.

After various attempts at the physical destruction or takeover of the English-speaking world had failed, the only remaining course was to dismantle it from within.

That is what "Liberals" are doing in the United States.

The frustrating thing is that we have always had the means to arrest our destruction. Throughout her ordeals in the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy was wearing the ruby slippers - the magic tool to take her back to Kansas - she just didn't realize their power. We, too, have had the magic tool at all times. What we need is to start calling socialists what they truly are. If they don't like it, they can simply stop being socialists. America is generous and will welcome back those who come to see the light.

But, as I suggested, alone Rush can do the job. If he decides the time is right, one or two of our elected representatives just might follow suit.

Then, sooner or later, we can all go home to Kansas.